Global warming: A problem or a 'CROCK' to grasp us all into a more ‘global village state of mind’?

Question

(and an explanation to tariff more personel activity and property)

Away from the media/ government hype, is there any REAL proof to say it is the result of ‘mans’ interfering?
Or
Is it simply natural divergence?
OR
Is it the equivalent to the way the weather (with its natural cycles) has always been?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-not-due-to-manmade-carbon-dioxide.html


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7138/1164

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1112950

Hi 'twilight'
The ‘passage’ you mentioned as your source, is definitely not from the Bible. Is it in the Quran or one of Apocrypha canon?

Answer 1

The UK department of education has been taken to the high court by a father claiming that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush.

The presiding Justice Burton will make a final ruling within a week but has already stated that the film does promote partisan political views. This is resulting in the government education system having to amend their Guidance Notes to make clear that:

1.) The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2.) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1966 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The eleven inaccuracies are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests evidence from ice cores covering the last 650,000 years proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases. The court found that the film was misleading due to the fact that the actual evidence from those ice cores demonstrate that the CO2 rises actually followed temperature increases by 800 to 2000 years and so could not have been causative.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


Climate change is happening because it is always happening, it part of how our atmosphere works. The degree to which it is happening and man's contribution has been grossly exaggerated for a variety of political reasons.
There is no scientific consensus, the appearance of it has been created by such tactics as the IPPC deleting the contributions of GW sceptic scientists from their reports, giving every extreme weather event world wide headline coverage and attributing it to global warming, any scientific results that throws doubt on the 'man made' hypothesis never makes it any further than the specialist scientific press. An example of this is a recent paper which demonstrated that a doubling of CO2 would produce an increase in temperature of between 0.5C and 1.5C, while the IPPC use 2.5C to 4.0C for their calculations, producing results about three times bigger than reality, yet the paper got no publicity outside the science press. So yes, we are being sold a pig in a poke

Answer 2

The simple answer is that all the pro-human effect scientists shout a lot about how we know it's happening, the threat is real, it is verified etc etc. But offer exactly the same evidence and sources as they used to say Iraq could attack us in 45 minutes with weapons of mass destruction!!! And we all remember how accurate those were, we went in to kill thousands of people in order to look and found nothing. Now they are trying to destroy thousands of peoples lives to find exactly the same thing, NOTHING!!!!

Human interference could be involved too, but personally I suspect that the massive cutting down of the rainforests has more to do with it than the use of oils. The carbon cycle is a massive natural occurrence and it is more than arrogant of small-minded individuals to think we could have any effect on a planet that has endured all that space and time has thrown at it and will endure for millions more years. If we kept going the way we were around 1900, then in about 10,000 years humans may have had a notable effect. Yes we do need to make gradual changes, but getting us to drive round in squirrels tails and eat the bark of a Bonga tree will achieve nothing.

Answer 3

I'm sure man has contributed to global climate change, but by and large, it is a natural event. But for the sake of discussion, let's say man is a BIG contributor to it. The outcome is still the same, because unless we can control ALL OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION, we will not be able to stop it through silly little efforts like energy saving light bulbs and the like.

So the politicians that want to tax us to fight global warming are merely using it as an EXCUSE to get more money from us by creating the impression that we actually have any control over the outcome.

Answer 4

No i don't trust that assertion. -The chinese language banned plastic which could be recycled yet what proportion timber are being chopped down for the alternative paper baggage? confident you additionally can recycle paper baggage inspite of the undeniable fact that i think recycled paper has greater barriers than recycled plastic. -Kim Jung IL (or in spite of that nut jobs call is) isn't a "international warming expert" so as that element isn't valid. -No i'm not prepared to stay under a dictatorship in ANY circumstances, the area of democracy is that the human beings could have an opinion and result substitute on climate substitute, many scientist say that the earth is going by using a organic warming era besides comparable to the cooling era interior the 60's. -i might in no way think of there is any sturdy with authoritarian dictatorship, in spite of in the event that they are sturdy to the human beings. i think of self-accountability and self-actualization are significant innovations that could in no way be performed under a dictatorship or autocracy.

Answer 5

"Global Warming". "Climate Change". "Man-made Environmental Disaster". All of these are scare tactic buzzwords crafted by folks with hidden agendas. They want to use the power they absorb by spreading fear to make a measurable impact on history.

Some may do it for pure environmental justification. Many will drink the eco-koolade and join the cause. Others, with bleeding hearts wish to see the "big, bully Amercian machine" fall, and have our wealth re-distributed to those with less wealth, but just as much "right" to it.. Hobbling our industry and economy by draconian regulations and taxes is one way to accomplish this.

Still others feel that humans are a plague on the planet, and want fewer of us around, so that "nature" can take its course without us mucking everything up.

In any case, I don't buy it for a second. It reeks of red herring. When the man keeps telling you to pay attention to what he is saying, and wants you to ignore the man behind the curtain, it is time to watch the man behind the curtain very closely.

SCAM, CROCK, HOAX. Whatever you want to call it. It will be outed as such before too long.

Oh, and to the doofus who thinks "scientific consensus" is hard proof - BZZZT. Writing an article in a published journal edited by people who think the same way is NOT proof of anything other than you have like-minded people to validate your theories. All theories and conjecture. No proof. Not a scrap. Sorry.

Answer 6

most of global warming is NATURAL CYCLES OF EARTH,SUN, n THE UNIVERSE the idea of carbon credits is a scam 2 make money i.e. THERE IS A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE! also some of the outer planets r also warming up,obviously man is 2 far away 2 affect it,we may contribute some 2 global warming but MOTHER NATURE will correct things via earth changes,pole shifts,etc..naturaly the NEW WORLD ORDER contro freaks will try 2 take advantage of CRISES n add 2 it thru biological and physicological death n destruction but fear not WHAT GOES AROUND,COMES AROUND!

Answer 7

Not even arguing about whether it is man or natural. Most of the audiovisual is a crock, exaggerated with Media slight of hand. Designed to scare kindergartners.

More on solar by National Geoghraphic "Naked Science,Solar Force" for one, associating long term low sunspot activity in the 12 year cycle with a cooler climate and long periods of high activity with warmer climates.

From the show
"Could the sun be the key to saving the Earth and humanity from the devastation of man-made global warming? Teams of scientists from around the world are uncovering hidden ways that the ever-changing sun dictates our climate."

After the scientist's made their obligitory "global warming statement, they spent the rest of the hour explaining how little they new about the effects of the sun(or why), on the earth's environment.

Answer 8

They just reported last week on national news that the ozone hole is the smallest it has been in over 30 years. If the global warming is so bad, why has the hole that allows the heat and solar rays to enter, gotten smaller thus reducing the warming trend?

Answer 9

It is a measurable fact the earth is getting warmer. The only theory that at present that can account for the timing and more or less the amount of warming is the burning of fossil fuels, and the warming was predicted before it happened. There is no absolute proof that it is the result of mans actions, but there is even less proof that it is not. However it is enough to convince most scientist that the probability of man made climate change is high enough to take some corrective actions. We went to war with Iraq and are spending a trillion dollars with less evidence of WMD.

Answer 10

Who really cares? We should all want a cleaner earth but not at the cost of economic meltdown or loss of sovereignty. Oil, natural gas, and coal will not be here forever and we need to find more sustainable resources. We can help fight drought, fight hunger, lower prices, and other matters, all because we go more to an environmental society. If we do it smart, we will all live better lives.